antichrist revealed? A wolf in sheeps clothing...

[Baptistrw]

Not all of Revelations has been fulfilled - Christ is still to return. Yet we can't expect that everything in Revelations is intended for our future.
Think about the purpose of Revelations - to comfort the church in John's day. It must have concerned events in John's time and things which the early church could read and understand. Applying Revelations in a literal way to our times only brings more confusion, not revelation, which is the main purpose of the book. We can't ignore the words "shortly come to pass" in verse 1, or "the time is at hand" in verse 3, indicating that the events were already about to start close to the time of John. It's possible that the references to the beast, anti-Christ etc, were referring to the Roman Empire in John's era, and a Roman Emperor. Afterall the early church did suffer about 300 years of persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire. A literal interpretation is valid for these historical events. However applying a literal interpretation to events in our time only leads to speculation and confusion, which is the opposite of the intended purpose of the book - revelation.

God's timing and our timing are much different. I think you totally missed the point of that. Revelation has NOT been fulfilled yet. I have some serious questions to ask those who take the preterist position:

1) Has Jesus physically returned to the Mt. of Olives?
2) Is Satan bound?
3) Have the plagues been poured out on the earth?

No to all 3. It's not possible the beast, AntiChrist, etc were referring to the Roman Empire. They didn't have the technology to kill everyone in earth, nor did they have the technology to control buying and selling.

 

[lovespeace123]

The condemnation in the Bible comes with receiving either his name or the number of his name, which tells me it is a man.

The key to salvation in that time is your name being found in the Book of Life (so pray up and live to please Christ NOW!), being patient, keeping God's command, and keeping the faith of Christ.

Also, the Bible makes it clear that it is better to die in that time than to receive that mark.

I personally think the antiChrist will be an atheist gone wild, who will take spiritual things for a joke and through some kind of power, overtake people and write his name on people in mocking of people's ingenuine faith and in mockery of Christ.

That is why when Christ is revealed in the heavens and comes with his angels, that mad man will realize that Christ is real and He just made a humongous mistake. - Slayed with breadth of Christ/splendor of his coming - Thessalonians.

I found one key in the Bible. People at the end will say that here He is or there He is, but Christ will not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed to all men, so when you hear that here He is or there He is...do not go, regardless of how many miracles or works they do.

Man...like the Bible says: It will be a time of trevail not seen since the forming of nations!

WATCH!!!

 

[MahogonySnail]

God's timing and our timing are much different. I think you totally missed the point of that. Revelation has NOT been fulfilled yet. I have some serious questions to ask those who take the preterist position:

1) Has Jesus physically returned to the Mt. of Olives?
2) Is Satan bound?
3) Have the plagues been poured out on the earth?

No to all 3. It's not possible the beast, AntiChrist, etc were referring to the Roman Empire. They didn't have the technology to kill everyone in earth, nor did they have the technology to control buying and selling.

Coins, cash, money , credit cards - these are all ways to control buying and selling. They certainly had coins etc in the early centuaries. Try buying something today without the official currency of whatever country you live in.

The 4th beast in Daniel is understood to be the Roman Empire (Daniel 7:23)..

so yes.. prophecy has come to pass, or started to come to pass and so has parts of Revelations.

Remember Revelations is a vision which is intended to carry a message of hope and encouragement to the persecuted church in the ancient world. It would do them little use if it was not referring to their own time i.e. persecution under the Roman Empire. Taking Revelations too literally leads people to all sorts of crazy conclusions such as a mind-controlled verichip implanted population all bowing to this AntiChrist, whilst the world lies in confusion with cars crashing, aircraft falling out of the sky as the saints have been suddenly raptured.

Barnes commentary on the passages in Rev 16:21 states (emphasis in bold):

This finishes the summary statement of the final destruction of this formidable anti-Christian power. The details and the consequences of that overthrow are more fully stated in the subsequent chapters. The fulfillment of what is here stated will be found, according to the method of interpretation proposed, in the ultimate overthrow of the papacy. The process described in this chapter is that of successive calamities that would weaken it and prepare it for its fall; then a rallying of its dying strength; and then some tremendous judgment that is compared with a storm of hail, accompanied with lightning, and thunder, and an earthquake, that would completely overthrow all that was connected with it, We are not, indeed, to suppose that this will literally occur; but the fair interpretation of prophecy leads us to suppose that that formidable power will, at no very distant period, be overthrown in a manner that would be well represented by such a fearful storm.

 

[Baptistrw]

How could the Roman Empire control the commerce here in the Americas in the first century AD? It couldn't. And did the Roman Empire ever have 10 kings? Sure didn't. The Roman Empire will be revived with AntiChrist at the head and 10 kings, the 10 horns of Revelation 17. Your statement about the rapture, I won't go there. Revelation doesn't need to be taken literally, but it needs to be taken the way it was intended. Some is gramatical/historical, some is allegorical. So it isn't intended to be taken "literally". There won't be a real monster with a woman riding on it and there won't be a real beast with 10 horns. That's allegory.

 

[christiancanadian]

Not all of Revelations has been fulfilled - Christ is still to return. Yet we can't expect that everything in Revelations is intended for our future.
Think about the purpose of Revelations - to comfort the church in John's day. It must have concerned events in John's time and things which the early church could read and understand. Applying Revelations in a literal way to our times only brings more confusion, not revelation, which is the main purpose of the book. We can't ignore the words "shortly come to pass" in verse 1, or "the time is at hand" in verse 3, indicating that the events were already about to start close to the time of John. It's possible that the references to the beast, anti-Christ etc, were referring to the Roman Empire in John's era, and a Roman Emperor. Afterall the early church did suffer about 300 years of persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire. A literal interpretation is valid for these historical events. However applying a literal interpretation to events in our time only leads to speculation and confusion, which is the opposite of the intended purpose of the book - revelation.

Doesn't the antichrist come first? Then Jesus? Is there a definate answer to this in the Bible?

 

[Baptistrw]

Jesus (rapture) AntiChrist Jesus (second coming) is the order of events when you compare the whole of scripture.

 

[MahogonySnail]

I believe a pre-tribulation or secret rapture belief came about through the revelations (dream or trance) of a young prophetess woman in scotland of the catholic apostolic church in the 1800's, not through biblical exegesis. People such as John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren took her beliefs and they've spread throughout christianity ever since, and bingo you have pre-tribulation rapture ideas. Also made popular by Tim LaHaye in his fictional works.

 

[Shawn]

I believe a pre-tribulation or secret rapture belief came about through the revelations (dream or trance) of a young prophetess woman in scotland of the catholic apostolic church in the 1800's, not through biblical exegesis. People such as John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren took her beliefs and they've spread throughout christianity ever since, and bingo you have pre-tribulation rapture ideas. Also made popular by Tim LaHaye in his fictional works.

That might be, but something occurs to me every time I hear someone discredit the possibility because they see it as a newer idea. There was a long period of Church History when the Bible was scarce and the Roman Catholic Church forbade it from being translated into common languages. Most of the Church was without access and even a lot of priests and clergy weren't that familiar with it. Martin Luther was a member of the clergy for a long time before he got into the Word and realized the errors of his Church. So my point is, Catholic theologians can say that the idea that salvation is from faith and grace and not of works is a new idea by the reformers and therefore not true. But that doesn't mean they're right does it? Because it is based on the scriptures. As people had more access to the Bible, more theories of what the prophecies might mean arose because people were studying it on a wider scale for the first time. I believe there was always a remnant of people who knew the truth about salvation of course, but who is to say how many people saw Bible passages that made them think the rapture and 2nd coming were different throughout the ages?

The wise and learned men of Jesus' time had the O.T. all of their lives to study. They knew all of the prophecies in those books that pointed to the coming Messiah and yet when it was right in front of them many did not understand. Why? because the prophecies were about 2 events, Jesus coming in the flesh and dying for our sins, and then His 2nd coming in power and Glory to establish His Kingdom. The common wisdom of centuries was that the Messiah would do all of those things at once and not in 2 separate events. Some Jews still don't believe Jesus was the Messiah because they rigidly think all of the O.T. prophecies were about one event and they don't see Jesus reigning on King David's throne. I'm just saying, that since we're dealing with prophecy can any of us say we get it all at this time?

You may be right, but I see a lot of things that sound like 2 events to me with the rapture and the 2nd coming because some verses sound like an event that is sudden and without signs and others sound like there are wild and obvious signs that no one could mistake before the coming of the Lord. Based on that I just can't discount the idea of a pre or mid-trib rapture happening at some point before the 2nd coming and establishing of Christ's Kingdom.

Do you have any links to info about the Scottish Prophetess? DID Darby get his first ideas about it from her? Darby wasn't the first to write about the rapture, just one of the more known and popular. Correct or wrong and in spite of where the idea might have originated in his head, he certainly seemed to study diligently and use exegesis to me. I also see a lot of things that seem like mistakes in his reasoning, but..who knows? I'm no Bible scholar.

 

[MahogonySnail]

I found the bit about it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture#Pre-Tribulation

under "Doctrinal History".

They are good points about the catholic church etc..but from what I've read not even reformers such as Calvin or Luther believed in pre-tribulation rapture, and they and other reformers had plenty of time to study the scriptures and discover a post-trib view was wrong if it was. Also I believe the majority of great bible teachers like Wesley, Newton, Henry, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Edwards, Tyndale, to name a few.


It's hard to find much evidence of a belief in a pre-tribulation rapture amongst many early christian writings especially ones who were closer to the time of the apostles than not, such as Irenaeus who believed that the Church would be on the earth during the time of the tribulation:

Irenaeus (130 to 200 A.D.) wrote, "they [the ten kings of Rev. 17:1-13] shall ...give their kingdom to the beast [Antichrist], and put the Church to flight" (Against Heresies V, 26, 1). Irenaeus also said : "but he [John] indicates the number of the name [666 of Antichrist] now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is" ( Against Heresies V, 30, 4).

I think that this at least indicates that a pre-tribulation belief was not taught by the apostles if early church writings don't confirm a pre-trib rapture idea.

 

[Baptistrw]

I found the bit about it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture#Pre-Tribulation

under "Doctrinal History".

They are good points about the catholic church etc..but from what I've read not even reformers such as Calvin or Luther believed in pre-tribulation rapture, and they and other reformers had plenty of time to study the scriptures and discover a post-trib view was wrong if it was. Also I believe the majority of great bible teachers like Wesley, Newton, Henry, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Edwards, Tyndale, to name a few.


It's hard to find much evidence of a belief in a pre-tribulation rapture amongst many early christian writings especially ones who were closer to the time of the apostles than not, such as Irenaeus who believed that the Church would be on the earth during the time of the tribulation:

Irenaeus (130 to 200 A.D.) wrote, "they [the ten kings of Rev. 17:1-13] shall ...give their kingdom to the beast [Antichrist], and put the Church to flight" (Against Heresies V, 26, 1). Irenaeus also said : "but he [John] indicates the number of the name [666 of Antichrist] now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is" ( Against Heresies V, 30, 4).

I think that this at least indicates that a pre-tribulation belief was not taught by the apostles if early church writings don't confirm a pre-trib rapture idea.

God has revealed things to different people in different ages. I think the Bible clearly teaches a pre-trib rapture. How could Christ come as a thief in the night, and after following certain signs? That's a contradiction.

 

[Baptistrw]

That might be, but something occurs to me every time I hear someone discredit the possibility because they see it as a newer idea. There was a long period of Church History when the Bible was scarce and the Roman Catholic Church forbade it from being translated into common languages. Most of the Church was without access and even a lot of priests and clergy weren't that familiar with it. Martin Luther was a member of the clergy for a long time before he got into the Word and realized the errors of his Church. So my point is, Catholic theologians can say that the idea that salvation is from faith and grace and not of works is a new idea by the reformers and therefore not true. But that doesn't mean they're right does it? Because it is based on the scriptures. As people had more access to the Bible, more theories of what the prophecies might mean arose because people were studying it on a wider scale for the first time. I believe there was always a remnant of people who knew the truth about salvation of course, but who is to say how many people saw Bible passages that made them think the rapture and 2nd coming were different throughout the ages?

The wise and learned men of Jesus' time had the O.T. all of their lives to study. They knew all of the prophecies in those books that pointed to the coming Messiah and yet when it was right in front of them many did not understand. Why? because the prophecies were about 2 events, Jesus coming in the flesh and dying for our sins, and then His 2nd coming in power and Glory to establish His Kingdom. The common wisdom of centuries was that the Messiah would do all of those things at once and not in 2 separate events. Some Jews still don't believe Jesus was the Messiah because they rigidly think all of the O.T. prophecies were about one event and they don't see Jesus reigning on King David's throne. I'm just saying, that since we're dealing with prophecy can any of us say we get it all at this time?

You may be right, but I see a lot of things that sound like 2 events to me with the rapture and the 2nd coming because some verses sound like an event that is sudden and without signs and others sound like there are wild and obvious signs that no one could mistake before the coming of the Lord. Based on that I just can't discount the idea of a pre or mid-trib rapture happening at some point before the 2nd coming and establishing of Christ's Kingdom.

Do you have any links to info about the Scottish Prophetess? DID Darby get his first ideas about it from her? Darby wasn't the first to write about the rapture, just one of the more known and popular. Correct or wrong and in spite of where the idea might have originated in his head, he certainly seemed to study diligently and use exegesis to me. I also see a lot of things that seem like mistakes in his reasoning, but..who knows? I'm no Bible scholar.

I TOTALLY agree with what you said about 2 events. But how could Christ return with the church at the end, if they were still on earth? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[lovespeace123]

The below verse says one thing and that is that Christ will not come in his glory till some type of rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness appears/ or is revealed.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Technically speaking, the rebellion that occurs may be the tribulation, though some argue that the tribulation is actually what happens as God judges the earth.

Either way, I think it is misleading that Christians think that they will always be saved from suffering. Truth is that you have to be counted worthy to escape.

Luke 21:36 - Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Matthew 10:17 "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues.

The picture I see is off a time of trial for the earth where people are overwhelmed by wickedness and many grow cold in their love of God. Not just wickedness that they see, but the kind that touches their lives.

Then.....

Things may get even worse...

Sam

 

[MahogonySnail]

But how could Christ return with the church at the end, if they were still on earth?

Good point, I don't know. Would it be saints who have already died come back with Christ?

 

[Truth2010]

The Bible says that the Antichrist will come from the 4th Kingdom.. Rome. Tony Blair may be an antichrist and may play a role in the setting of the stage for THE antichrist to come into full power.. But he doesnt match all the characteristics that have been given in the Bible for THE antichrist.. I can provide more info on that for ya..

 

[MahogonySnail]

Rome.. past or present . you mean the R.C church?

 

[Truth2010]

Rome.. past or present . you mean the R.C church?

Both past and present.. Yes R.C definitely..

 

[christiancanadian]

Oke i have to react at this topic, because this theology of one antichrist is not what i read in the Bible.

(is 1 John en 2 John is the only book where i can find the word antichrist?)
1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

This text says not that there is one antichrist but many!
And read verse 22! The antichrist is everybody who denies the Father and the Son! They came forth out of our mids. Well that is because they denied Jesus Christ.

Well now let us not point at a man. Let our knowledge be from the Bible before we only point at some people. Every time we think we now a person who is "the antichrist". While the Bible says there are many, and it is about the persons who are denying Jesus Christ.

That is what i wish to add here.

I'm not saying that I"m an expert. But I've been studying this for a couple decades now, and I'm pretty certain it's going to be one man. Is that hard to imagine? Nope. Not at all. Look at Hitler. To those living in that time, with Hitler responsible for killing millions and millions, I'm sure many thought he WAS the antichrist. However, do I disagree with you believing there are many antichrists. No, I totally agree with that too. I think many will have the spirit of the antichrist. However, there will be one antichrist who will be much worse that Hitler was. In fact, I would go as far to say that Hitler proves it CAN be one person. He'll initially come in peace. He'll deceive many with his tongue. People will be not be able to take their eyes off him, he'll be that powerful. I'm not saying I'm certain it's Blair. The groundwork may be getting laid, which appears to be whats happening now. The reality is, none of us know for sure, definately not myself.

 

[alien]

i know of people who believe of pres. Obama of the U.S. being the antichrist what do you think of this
Anthony

 

[Baptistrw]

i know of people who believe of pres. Obama of the U.S. being the antichrist what do you think of this
Anthony

Dunno. When the antichrist is revealed I won't be here anyways so I don't give it any thought

 

[Abing]

oprah lol. .............. or michael jackson. lol